installpkg messing up perms
in [Slackware]
|
From: Dario Niedermann on 14 Jul 2010 15:21 Martin <no(a)spam.invalid> wrote: > You don't get it, do you? I get it, you don't. > Nobody has the slightest interest in actually using your patch. Good, because nobody is going to receive it. > Everybody is just waiting to see So get a life, you jackasses. -- > head -n1 /etc/*-{version,release} && uname -moprs Slackware 12.2.0 Linux 2.6.27.31-smp i686 AMD Turion(tm) 64 Mobile Technology MK-36 GNU/Linux
From: Sylvain Robitaille on 14 Jul 2010 16:59 Keith Keller wrote: > ... step 3 in the howto clearly states: > > "Note that for many builds, you will need to have a true login shell in > order to have a correctly populated environment. Among other things, > /usr/share/texmf/bin will not be in your PATH if you simply do "su" -- > therefore, you will need to either use "su -" when switching to root, or > source the the /etc/profile script after doing "su", or perhaps > modifying /root/.bashrc to include necessary PATH elements." > ... > In any case, if modifying the SlackBuild scripts is not an option, I > would then suggest modifying the howto to unambiguously recommend su -, > in order to try to prevent any issues with differing umasks. No, that still places a dependancy on the user's environment matching (at least those characteristics of) the developper's. It's not reasonable to expect that the system running the script is a stock Slackware system. The script should create the environment it needs, especially given that we're discussing here some fairly trivial parameters to setup, and some that are commonly not left stock. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sylvain Robitaille syl(a)encs.concordia.ca Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith Keller on 14 Jul 2010 17:10 On 2010-07-14, Sylvain Robitaille <syl(a)alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: > Keith Keller wrote: > >> In any case, if modifying the SlackBuild scripts is not an option, I >> would then suggest modifying the howto to unambiguously recommend su -, >> in order to try to prevent any issues with differing umasks. > > No, that still places a dependancy on the user's environment matching > (at least those characteristics of) the developper's. It's not > reasonable to expect that the system running the script is a stock > Slackware system. The script should create the environment it needs, > especially given that we're discussing here some fairly trivial > parameters to setup, and some that are commonly not left stock. Well, I'm not in charge of slackbuilds, so I wanted to give an alternative in the case where they did not want to (or could not) implement your suggestion. I agree that yours is superior, but as I'm not in a position to help I don't want to presume anything about their capacity. Modifying the howto is (likely) literally five minutes and requires no testing. If Robby asks, I hope you'll offer to help. :) --keith -- kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information
From: Robby Workman on 14 Jul 2010 18:02 On 2010-07-13, Dario Niedermann <M8R-cthw2f(a)spamherelots.com> wrote: > Robby Workman <newsgroups(a)rlworkman.net> wrote: > >> switch to root properly from your user account > > What do you mean "properly"? Su and sudo are not "proper"? Perhaps I didn't say it correctly, even if the context was (mostly) clear (to everyone else). What I mean is "make sure you have a sane environment after switching to root." I'm sure there's a corner case out there somewhere, but I just do not see a reason for *root* to have a umask other than 0022. > Who said that? The pkgtools development team? The slackbuilds.org crew? I did. Kinda. Yes. >> This is NOT a problem with the scripts, >> or is it a problem with pkgtools. > > Of course! God forbid! > > Gee, I swear this is the most arrogant and self-righteous community I've > ever seen, bar none. Maybe it is, or maybe it isn't, but it's STILL not a problem with the scripts or pkgtools. -RW
From: Robby Workman on 14 Jul 2010 18:07
On 2010-07-14, Dario Niedermann <M8R-cthw2f(a)spamherelots.com> wrote: > Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote: > >> To be fair, the suggestion to set the umask in the SlackBuild scripts >> was a good one, and would help avoid this problem in the future. > > No it wasn't and no it wouldn't. It's just a quick hack to avoid fixing > installpkg to make it handle broken packages gracefully. The installpkg script isn't broken in this regard. The package was broken. The *real* solution is to not build a broken package (and it doesn't matter whose fault that was -- the solution is to fix it). > The truth is, you're too much of a retard to realize that a package > installer that's so fussy as to require the user to become root in a > specific way rather than another would be pathetic even for 1992. Except that's not the case at all. The package installer doesn't care how you become root. Your package build environment was not set up as expected, so it built a broken package. Installing that package messed up some things on your system, as a broken package is expected to do. The solution is to not build a broken package. -RW |